Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Beauty And The Beast in 70mm

This is topic Beauty And The Beast in 70mm in forum Large Format Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000050

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-08-2001, 04:00 PM:

Talked to a person at Technicolor today and they said they will be printing at least multiple copies of this feature in 70mm very soon. They are even getting a batch of new 70mm shipping reels made at Goldberg for the release. I put in my vote for all 70mm DTS prints.
Mark @ GTS

[ 01-02-2011, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-08-2001, 04:04 PM:

Are these 5-perf 70mm prints? There are already plans for 8-perf 70mm and 15-perf 70mm prints. Maybe your contact was thinking of these?

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Pete Lawrence (Member # 130) on 10-08-2001, 06:35 PM:

Oh Goodie... another Special Edition of an old film.

As I understand it, there will be 6 minutes of "new footage" and it's an IMAX exclusive for the first couple months. Then everybody else gets it, maybe. The added footage thing seems to be a first for Disney on a re-release.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 10-08-2001, 06:37 PM:

Yes, that was what I was thinking.. we have a poster in some of our lobbies (or is it lobbys!?) for IMAX Beauty And The Beast.

Was Beauty And The Beast done all digitally, ie: could they "re-render" it to get better picture quality? I worry about quality from just printing a 15/70 print, even from a good 35mm negative.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-08-2001, 07:44 PM:

Instead of re-releasing old hash in 70mm (and it's IMAX and 8-perf "fake IMAX" cousins), they instead should release NEW movies in 70mm. I know I know, I am waaaaay out of my league here, since 35mm is good enough (hell, DVD is good enough), but really, there hasn't been a new 70mm release for a very long time. While they're at it, they should shoot on 65mm to make it even more worth it. Another good thing is that there wouldn't be all of the soda, car and other commercials spliced on the front of the print. And while I'm at it, I want feature length fictional movie (no cartoons)! Not just 50 minute documentary fluff that will fit on an IMAX platter.

Beauty and the Beast was traditional Disney animation. It can't be re-rendered. You are just supposed to be in absolute awe that it is now on IMAX. Are you?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-08-2001, 08:05 PM:

I agree with Joe, we really do need actual movies produced in 65mm with 70mm prints struck. As far as I'm concerned, a release like Far and Away should have been released to 70mm equipped theaters for the first 2 months and then all of the run-of-the-mill 35mm theaters should be able to get it. If producers really wanted quality presentations of their movies, then this would provide that assurance.

And of course, John Leguizamo should be in all future 70mm films. Right Joe?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-08-2001, 09:49 PM:

It's not even worth making a movie if John Leguizamo isn't somehow involved.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-08-2001, 10:00 PM:

They called us looking for 70mm shipping reels. I was out of town when the original call came in last week...I was camping out near the Christie Plant in Cyprus,CA at the time. I called them back today to fulfill a note that was left on my desk asking me to call back. I was then told that they are striking a number of 70mm prints for release. They didn't know what format it was but they wanted larger than normal 70mm reels. They were looking for 24, or 26" reels where the normal is 22". Goldberg is making a new batch of them. I was told that HFC(the normal supplier of 70mm shipping reels) cannot supply them in that size, only in 22"
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 10-08-2001, 10:38 PM:

Brad Miller said: "As far as I'm concerned, a release like Far and Away should have been released to 70mm equipped theaters for the first 2 months and then all of the run-of-the-mill 35mm theaters should be able to get it."

I know that ALIEN opened in 70mm exclusively, and also, I believe, EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. I'm not sure about THE ROSE, but that may also have opened in 70mm theatres THEN later in 35.

Ah, the good old days.

BATB might be the longest 15/70 feature yet. IMDB lists it at 84 minutes, and they are adding a song back to the film (Human Again, I believe), so it should run longer than that. FANTASIA 2000 lists at 72, and STONES AT THE MAX lists at 89.

I'm looking forward to it on the Giant Screen. Gaston will look marvelous 80' wide!

Mark L.

------------------
"As a moral to young men who come down to the city, don't go round breaking people's tambourines."

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-09-2001, 07:38 AM:

John Walsh asked: "Was Beauty And The Beast done all digitally, ie: could they "re-render" it to get better picture quality? I worry about quality from just printing a 15/70 print, even from a good 35mm negative."

AFAIK, although "Beauty and the Beast" was mostly traditional animation with a few computer generated animation sequences, the "ink and paint" was done digitally, so hopefully the original image files will be re-rendered and output to 65mm negative at the higher resolution needed for 15-perf 70mm release. In other words, it WON'T just be a blow-up from the 35mm negative.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 10-09-2001, 07:51 AM:

The most notable computer sequence is the sweeping camera move during the ballroom dancing scene. This has been used in a number of computer animation demos. The ballroom was computer animated, and the couple was done traditionally.

Mark L.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 10-09-2001, 07:58 AM:

I just hopped to the Disney web page. No details on where the picture will be playing yet. It is listed as being a SPECIAL EDITION for IMAX and Large Screen theatres.

As for the state of the picture itself, here is a quote from Disney:

Disney's animators and post-production crew spent more than a year going through the film, scene-by-scene, enhancing backgrounds, improving special effects, and refining character faces and bodies to shine brightly on the giant screen. In addition, to ensure that the "Human Again" sequence would fit in seamlessly with the surrounding film, Disney artists who originally worked on Beauty and the Beast returned to bring the enchanted characters to life. At the same time, producer Don Hahn worked to ensure that the Giant-Screen version of "Beauty and the Beast" would be crystal clear and not simply a grainy blow-up; because all of the images from "Beauty and the Beast" were stored digitally, the colors of the film will appear more lustrous, more vibrant, and more brilliant on the Giant Screen than ever before. This attention to detail will provide audiences with a motion picture experience second-to-none when this all-new version of "Beauty and the Beast" debuts on January 1, 2002.

Mark L.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 10-09-2001, 10:23 AM:

While I would admire an effort to release films like Alien and The Empire Strikes Back in exclusive 70mm runs for the first little while, the difference between those films and Far and Away is that the latter was actually shot on 65mm negatives. That is the key which I had hoped audiences would embrace and, therefor, the bottom-line people in Hollywood would embrace. Oh, well.

I never got a chance to see Fantasia 2000 in IMAX (didn't want to drive 500 miles for it) but I like the idea of Disney doing a digital master which, presumably, can be printed to both 35mm and IMAX with adequate resolution. However, I don't like the idea that Hollywood's interest in 70mm is only concerned with special venue projects.

Posted by Stefan Scholz (Member # 147) on 10-09-2001, 02:58 PM:

I agree with Brad that it would help to run good shows for some time exclusively in 70 mm equipped theatres. Our Savoy theatre lived on that in the good old days, but now everybody who seems to request a 35 mm first run print is served regardless of projection and sound quality, size etc. Just 2 weeks, and thats the halv life of an average show in Germany. Sad. Good, highest quality first run may help to build up a rep for ashow. But talking theatre as just an advertising market for DVD, cable and rental... it will be hard.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 10-09-2001, 10:01 PM:

Here's the Beauty and the Beast website where you can find out where it's going to play.

Don't forget about The Lion King in Imax theaters January 2003 and they're doing something with The Black Stallion soon, too. And Dreamworks is re-purposing Shrek in Imax 3D, which will be the first feature-length 3D for Imax.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 10-10-2001, 07:54 AM:

Adam, I missed that on the BATB site...thanks for finding it.

The list is too long to post here, but you can find it on the BATB site Adam listed above under "TICKETS".

Two surprises from the list. It is booked into a number of dome theatres, and none of the Sony theatres (NY, Chicago, SF) are currently listed.

Mark L.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 10-19-2001, 10:49 PM:

For what it's worth, the Oddessy large format (15/70) theater we own got a Beauty and the Beast trailer (it was added to the beginning of Whales.)

I was worried about seeing too much grain since it was not originally film in 15/70, but, as Frank Zappa said, "Not a speck of cereal!" So they must have gone back and re-done it. If the whole movie is like the trailer, there's no problem.

Also did my first large format theater servicing (changed an unbelievably heavy HF driver.) It's a bit unnerving to climb up 30 feet of screen, just to get to the left speaker which is only half-way up. There's a center-top speaker, which I hope lasts a long time.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 10-20-2001, 10:17 AM:

Mark L: Sony IMAX is now called Loews IMAX.

The nearest venue to NYC (as of this post) is at Palisades Center, a giant mall just west of the Tappan Zee Bridge. The Palisades Center IMAX is not affiliated with the Loews megaplex there.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 10-20-2001, 02:16 PM:

Charles Everett said, "Mark L: Sony IMAX is now called Loews IMAX."

Thank you for the correction, Charles. I used the link www.sonyimax.com, and didn't look closely at the names. www.loewsimax.com doesn't seem to work.

Mark L.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 10-20-2001, 07:10 PM:

How will one know if BEAUTY AND THE BEAST will sho in 15 perf or8 perf 70mm? I ask because Edwards will be showing it in their former Imax theatres in Valencia, Ontario and Irvine, but are advertising it as something other than Imax. Does anyone know if they're equiping with Non-Imax but Imax compatable projectors, or if theyre using the 8-perf format?

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 10-20-2001, 11:35 PM:

I have a feeling that it will be avaible in both 15/70 and 8/70. The advertisment for the film reads something like; "Comming to IMAX and other large format theaters.."

We don't have an IMAX theater, so we can't advertise IMAX. There are a few other IMAX "knock-offs" which is why they advertise it as something other than IMAX. It would be good if you can find out if the format is 15/70 or 8/70 before you pay.

In the BATB trailer, they show the ballroom scene. I think the background (walls, windows, columns, etc.) were done digitally, while the charactors were drawn with traditional animation. Interestingly, the background looked poor compared to the charactors. Not grainy, but a little too far out of focus, and "false" somehow... purely subjective on my part, I admit.....

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 01-02-2011, 05:51 AM:

It has been 3360 days since the last post.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-02-2011, 05:51 AM:

quote: was the last to post
As far as I'm concerned, a release like Far and Away should have been released to 70mm equipped theaters for the first 2 months and then all of the run-of-the-mill 35mm theaters should be able to get it

It really is too bad the movie producers are not doing this. Many films get exclusive engagements before they go ultra wide.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 01-02-2011, 06:17 AM:

quote:
But talking theatre as just an advertising market for DVD, cable and rental... it will be hard.

Tom.

Stefan here has summed up the situation very well indeed.
The only commercially successful large format, Imax, is hell bent on totally fucking up what was once a bankable, QUALITY product.
For fucks sake, why do blow ups to Imax?? It makes NO sense quality-wise, and is frankly a rip-off, to do these piss-weak 'attempts' at large format.

If you have the greatest format ever invented in cinema, then damn-well shoot the stuff in large format. Trying to cut corners and save the almighty $ but doing blowups reeks of abject stupidity.
Its like getting a Porche and running it on kero.

Oh well, by now the suits at Imax have almost ground any bankable goodwill into the ground and will soon be, as Stefan says, just an advert for the Blu-ray release.

What a fucking crock.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-02-2011, 06:20 AM:

quote: Ian Parfrey
The only commercially successful large format, Imax, is hell bent on totally fucking up what was once a bankable, QUALITY product.

When you say most successful large format, for documentaries right?

How long has IMAX been projecting Hollywood films?

quote: Ian Parfrey
If you have the greatest format ever invented in cinema, then damn-well shoot the stuff in large format.

From what I understand, it is very difficult to shoot films on IMAX..As for animals and hubble stuff, that is different.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-02-2011, 09:58 AM:

There's a wonderful old saying that I learned from some Hollywood folks:

"When something doesn't seem to make sense...follow the money!"

(And moderators: please CORRECT THE TYPO IN THE THREAD TITLE so that it reads 70mm and not 7omm.)

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 01-02-2011, 02:56 PM:

Tom.

I wouldn't say that Imax (15/70 & 48 fps) is the highest quality format just for docos &tc. I would say it's the highest fidelity motion picture system on par with Showscan (5/70 @ 60 fps). Incidently, the first Showscan projectors were modified Century's. Ahhh, my beloved Century's. To see and hear 70mm @ 60 frames a second is one thing I will never forget.

You are correct in saying that there are difficulties in shooting Imax 15/70 and these can be summarised thus-:

The most obvious one is camera size/weight. The rawstock alone weighs more than some complete camera systems.
The limited depth of field due to frame size. This is most applicable to Showscan.
Strobing due to the distances moved on the massive screens. Panning must be very slow in order to reduce strobing as much as possible as there were many early reports of nausea and some epilepsy in patrons. Object movement can move 6-8 feet in one frame to the next.
Raw stock costs.
Mechanical inertia of the stock in the magazines. This makes the aforementioned panning difficult in some circumstances and it has not been unknown for the inertia to rip a camera to pieces- ditto more so for Showscan.
It would actually be HARDER to shoot doco-style compared to a locked off studio shoot.

But for all their difficulties, my God the images are stunning! Now, THAT is something that NO home video setup will ever beat.*

Manny is so on the money there! That 'Follow the Money' mindset will kill off any ambition, originality and creativity left in the movie industry- and we will all be the poorer for it....except the suits. They always seem to get their bonuses before fleeing companies they screwed up.

"Coming Soon to a Theatre near you!..... Manny On The Money...rated PG"

*- The suits at Imax are doing there damndest to screw it up regardless.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-02-2011, 03:44 PM:

The "suits" have messed up things across much of the entertainment industry.

The obsession of being faster (and cheaper) via "digital" has led to a decline in image quality standards in movies. IMAX Digital is one example of this. It's an insult to the intelligence of customers.

The music industry has its own horror show in quality standards. Music is mastered with the audio badly overdriven and clipped. The prominence of iTunes and lossy data compressed music has compounded the problem. What's the point of even bothering to buy "audiophile" quality stereo gear anymore when the music source sounds like shit regardless of what is used to play it?

The television broadcast industry has been infected with the drive to show "unscripted" programs rather than pay more money to produce dramas and comedies that require talented writers, actors, etc. to create the product. There's little wonder why HBO wins so many Emmy awards. The major broadcast networks are hardly trying anymore. Broadcast journalism is all but dead; it has been replaced by talking heads throwing around their opinions and propaganda.

Blu-ray disc has great potential in the home, if it's used to its fullest potential. Unfortunately it isn't in many cases. Warner Bros. is a frequent offender in needlessly over-compressing its movies down to the lowest possible bit rates. Then there's pressure from other outlets to squeeze data down further with the hope customers won't know or care about the difference. Dish Network, DirecTV and various cable companies present local channels and even some cable channels in "HD Lite" rather than a full 720p or 1080i image. Streaming movie services, like Netflix, squeeze the hell out of SD and HD quality material where it is inferior to DVD and Blu-ray content. The "HD" movies for sale/rent on AppleTV hardly even pass for SD DVD quality, much less 720p quality. The general public really needs to wake up already and realize "digital" does not guarantee perfect quality in an audio or video product.

Quality used to be a big deal in American products and services. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. "Good enough" is the new standard. Anyone who expects things like high quality or just having the damned job done right is just being some kind of an asshole now.

While our ethics have dropped in this nation the gap in quality is creating a big opportunity for creative businesses in other countries. The United States used to dominate in manufacturing things like cars, but we let that slip away due to not caring enough about quality. The same thing can certainly happen with the entertainment industry.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-02-2011, 03:47 PM:

quote: Ian Parfrey
Tom.

I wouldn't say that Imax (15/70 & 48 fps) is the highest quality format just for docos &tc. I would say it's the highest fidelity motion picture system on par with Showscan (5/70 @ 60 fps). Incidently, the first Showscan projectors were modified Century's. Ahhh, my beloved Century's. To see and hear 70mm @ 60 frames a second is one thing I will never forget.

You are correct in saying that there are difficulties in shooting Imax 15/70 and these can be summarised thus-:

* The most obvious one is camera size/weight. The rawstock alone weighs more than some complete camera systems.
* The limited depth of field due to frame size. This is most applicable to Showscan.
* Strobing due to the distances moved on the massive screens. Panning must be very slow in order to reduce strobing as much as possible as there were many early reports of nausea and some epilepsy in patrons. Object movement can move 6-8 feet in one frame to the next.
* Raw stock costs.
* Mechanical inertia of the stock in the magazines. This makes the aforementioned panning difficult in some circumstances and it has not been unknown for the inertia to rip a camera to pieces- ditto more so for Showscan.
It would actually be HARDER to shoot doco-style compared to a locked off studio shoot.

But for all their difficulties, my God the images are stunning! Now, THAT is something that NO home video setup will ever beat.*

Manny is so on the money there! That 'Follow the Money' mindset will kill off any ambition, originality and creativity left in the movie industry- and we will all be the poorer for it....except the suits. They always seem to get their bonuses before fleeing companies they screwed up.

"Coming Soon to a Theatre near you!..... Manny On The Money...rated PG"

*- The suits at Imax are doing there damndest to screw it up regardless.

To date there has not been a full IMAX Hollywood film. Right? Yes the images are stunning but the overall cost of all this is just way too much to make it really worthwhile.

Christopher Nolan is still using 70mm and is using IMAX for his Batman stuff, but he is a minority. Wait till he pumps out a huge "bomb" made on IMAX and his love for the format will end.

IMO, the most important aspect of a film is the story. You can have all the photography equipment you want but without a great story you have nothing. Black Swan is the best picture of the year IMO (I have not yet seen King Speech) and that was filmed on 16mm/7D.

Now, yes I loved my experience in 2001 and Playtime. These are the rare exceptions. But I do have to point out that the screen was average to large size and the theatre was out of the world "state-of-the-art"

Ideally, I think consumers want something in between standard 35mm and 70mm IMAX. The new IMAX theatres are doing extrodinary well thus the new AVX/ETX stuff.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 01-02-2011, 04:59 PM:

> To date there has not been a full IMAX Hollywood film. Right?

The first dramatic scripted 3D IMAX film was Wings Of Courage (1995) staring Elizabeth McGovern, Val Kilmer and Tom Hulce. At 40 minutes, you may or may not consider it a full Hollywood film, but it was quite well done.

quote: Wikipedia
Wings of Courage is a 1995 American-French drama film directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud. The 40-minute picture was written by Annaud with Alain Godard. It was the world's first dramatic picture shot in the IMAX-format. Additionally, it was the first 3D IMAX fiction film.

The film is an account of the real-life story of early airmail pilot Henri Guillaumet (Craig Sheffer), whose small plane crashes in the Andes, forcing him to trek back to civilization on foot. Meanwhile the story follows his family and friends at home, and their growing concern for him. Elizabeth McGovern, Val Kilmer and Tom Hulce also star.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 01-02-2011, 05:43 PM:

.... and if the studios wish to divest themselves of the ONLY quality that differentiates the 'Cinema going experience' from sitting on your arse watching videos at home then cinemas will eventually be phased out. Think the music industry with online downloading and the closing of record stores.
The parallels here are obvious. Got to a record shop, browse and by a full bit-depth cd OR download a compressed-as-all-fuck mp3. Who wins here? Certainly not the record store owners.. or the consumer.

Transpose that scenario onto the cinema industry.
Go to a cinema and (SUPPOSEDLY) watch a super-high quality movie and have a differentiable experience from downloading a compressed-as-all-fuck file/dvd/blu-ray/whatever.

This has been my theory all along that the studios consider the exhibition industry as a drain on their profits. Rid the exhibitors and reap thy rewards. How to do this? Give them shit to show. e.g shitty 2k intermediates output to 35/70.

See the comparisons here with the music industry?

What is the saddest of all is that the Cinema as an exhibition medium has the tools NOW to blow the audience out of the water and yet we give them shit.

That aint no way to run a sustainable industry.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-02-2011, 06:28 PM:

quote: Ian Parfrey
Got to a record shop, browse and by a full bit-depth cd OR download a compressed-as-all-fuck mp3. Who wins here? Certainly not the record store owners.. or the consumer.

In the case of music CD the mastering practices are so bad (deliberate clipping of the audio waves and various compression techniques to make the music louder) you're screwed no matter how you buy the music. In technical terms the quality level is badly compromised -this is regardless of the fact current technology can allow never before seen levels of quality in popular music.

Then you have the music itself. The popular music industry has pretty much been regurgitating the same stuff since 1990. Only a handful of companies control nearly the entire industry. There is no healthy house-cleaning of styles like we used to see every few years. The last major house-cleaning of music styles happened in 1990.

The practice of reselling the same old thing is not just being practiced by the music industry. The entire entertainment industry is doing this on an increasing basis. It's sad that it now makes news for a new movie not based on any previous movie or other work (such as Inception) to be a hit. TV is populated with lots of "reality TV" shows or numerous flavors of CSI, Law & Order, etc. Corporate America says it's too risky to fund new ideas. So let's just keep repackaging the old ideas in different wrappers.
[Roll Eyes]

America's entertainment industry is so bent over, pants down around the ankles, just waiting to take it up the butt dry by some upstart foreign competitor. The opportunity is so obviously there I won't be surprised at all when it happens.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-03-2011, 08:24 PM:

I remember reading a long time ago that a "full-length" feature has to be at least 80 minutes. This was to qualify for an Academy Award.

However, this was at least 20 years ago, so I could be out-of-date.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-04-2011, 11:02 AM:

I was always under the impression that it was 70 min or more for a feature

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 01-06-2011, 03:57 PM:

The International Federation of Film Archives (FIAF) defines feature length as at least four (4) reels or 4000 feet in length or 40 minutes long.

Here's the AMPAS rule for length of a short film.

Academy Awards Rule 19 web page

quote:
Rule Nineteen: Short Films Awards

DEFINITIONS
A short film is defined as an original motion picture that has a running time of 40 minutes or less, including all credits.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 01-06-2011, 04:24 PM:

Anything under 40 minutes is considered a short. A film that runs 40-65/70 minutes used to be known as a "streamliner."

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-07-2011, 01:15 AM:

Wow - it's worse than I thought! [Eek!]

I wonder how many people would pay $14 to see a 45min "feature" at the Arclight in Los Angeles... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-07-2011, 07:08 AM:

When the local AMC Imax, Jr. showed the Hubble movie, they ran it the first 2 shows only and with a $5 ticket. I wouldn't have gone if they charged their full Imax price.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 01-07-2011, 01:07 PM:

quote: Manny Knowles
I wonder how many people would pay $14 to see a 45min "feature" at the Arclight in Los Angeles...

Those were the days, of course, when most theaters were playing double features, and it wasn't quite as offensive to have a 45-minute feature on the second half of the bill.

(For what it's worth, TCM has been running some of Hal Roach's streamliners from the mid-40s recently, and sometimes even 45 minutes seems too long for them.)

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 05-18-2011, 07:24 AM:

I definitely see your point, Manny. Most people probably wouldn't do that.

However, for the record, I would pay $14 to go to the Arclight for just about any movie of practically any running time, and would feel that it was excellent value. But that's just me. I love that place. I love LA generally. I love America generally. Heck, I just love everything. [Smile]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-18-2011, 07:10 PM:

^ = stoned